This discussion IS on xmca and is very interesting.
On 2/23/06, Peg Griffin <Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Natalia Gajdamaschko [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:20 AM
> To: Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Creativity
> Hi Peg,
> This is very interesting. I also have been thinking about it in connection
> to curriculum development for younger children. By the way, did you notice
> that we wondered off the XMCA space somehow -- should we re-post our chat
> there so more people could jump in and comment? How do we do that?
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:04:18 -0800 Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > Natalia, yes that it what I've noticed, ""genuine metaphor" (that could
> > pop-up suddenly in the situation of play)".
> > It's exactly what I am tempted to think of as epiphoric.
> > That way we could reserve "meta" for the less
> > pop-up-held-within-the-play-activity forms or instances.
> > The later appearing forms are more likely to be "defensible" or
> > "explicable"
> > by the user/creator even if the activity that gave rise is interfered
> > somehow (by atrophy over time or change in participant structure or
> > imposition of interfering questions from an experimenter or teacher or
> > editor...).
> > But while maybe not fully "meta" controlled, an emotive aesthetic
> > to the epiphor by at least some participant in the play activity may
> > be what
> > contributes to the germ yielding the later growth of meptaphor?
> > I've also been thinking that the "epi" and "meta" difference may be or
> > very close related to the "everyday" and "scientific" distinction.
> > And finally, I've been thinking along these lines because I've been
> > thinking
> > about "mathematization" that early childhood mathematics educators talk
> > about. The main idea is that in play and life kids are in situations
> > mathematics is and when parents/teachers "mathematize" the situation
> > there's
> > a better chance for kids to capitalize on their experiences during later
> > schooling in mathematics.
> > Here's an example: a classroom full of kids is about to do a project
> > that is
> > too messy for the whole class to do at once. They need to divide into
> > teams.
> > The kids walk into spaces to divide themselves; they use a deck of cards
> > with classmates' pictures and names to divide; they use hearts on a
> > board with dry erase marked columns to divide. It is all division by
> > dealing or distribution: 1, 1, 1; 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3... And they try
> > bigger or
> > smaller "teams" as they figure out what will be not too messy but have
> > enough kids to do the project and have fun. The mathematization on the
> > erase magnetized board with columns lets them see (and some fall in love
> > with) the calculus of more teams/fewer people on a team.
> > By the way I have never had creativity demand so much to be noticed and
> > appreciated as it is among the mathematics loving preschoolers I've met.
> > Peg
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Natalia Gajdamaschko [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:08 AM
> > To: Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Creativity
> > On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:45:54 -0800 Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > > Metaphorical thinking ascribed to kids has also worried me, not so
> > > about thinking in complexes (although now it will!) but about the
> > contrast
> > > with not-metaphor. I think what is called metaphor use by a little
> > one is
> > > sometimes not shown to be in a system of opposition with
> > > language/thought. So, diachronically speaking, maybe metaphor for kids
> > > not the same as for others; if that's so, the door is open for the
> > > about what it is synchronically (i.e., maybe thinking in complexes).
> > > Do we
> > > want to think of it in the same way as it may become later in the
> > > one's life trajectory? Or do we want to see the germ cell that yields
> > > subsequent form?
> > Yes, exactly, Peg! If metaphor for younger kids is not the same as it
> > may be for others, in what way it would be different from, say,
> > metaphor for
> > an adolescent? Is it not necessary for us to keep in mind that it
> could be
> > based inside different psychological systems, not least in order to be
> > to show that imagination and creativity are developing?
> > Or, another way to ask the same question: if we assume that metaphorical
> > thinking in younger children is a process of maturation, how do we
> > distinguish between possible "genuine metaphor" (that could pop-up
> > in the situation of play) and "non-figurative" thinking, which is
> > in complexes (in the situation of problem solving)?
> > Best wishes,
> > Natalia.
> > P.S. Thank you for "epiphoric" idea and references.
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 01 2006 - 01:00:03 PST